Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T16:43:40.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COVID Travel Bans, Citizenship and the Constitution: Do Australian Citizens Have a Constitutional Right of Abode?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Priam Rangiah Open the ORCID record for Priam Rangiah [Opens in a new window]
Priam Rangiah*
Affiliation:
BA/LLB (Hons I) (University of Queensland)
*
The author may be contacted at pirangiah@gmail.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The words ‘the people’ of the States and of the Commonwealth appear throughout the Constitution, yet they have received little judicial attention. It remains unclear who constitutes ‘the people’ and what rights or freedoms membership of ‘the people’ entails. This essay explores these uncertainties, suggesting that ‘the people’ have an implied constitutional freedom to enter and remain in Australia without licence from the executive. Recognition of such an implied constitutional freedom would have important implications in the COVID-19 era for the validity of travel bans and restrictions, which exclude citizens from entering Australia on public health grounds.

Type
Articles
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , December 2022 , pp. 558 - 580
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s)

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to Dr Rebecca Ananian-Welsh for her invaluable feedback on multiple drafts of this article, as well as her support and advice in the publication process. All opinions expressed in this article are my own.

References

1. Biosecurity (Human Biosecurity Emergency) (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) (Emergency Requirements — High Risk Country Travel Pause) Determination 2021 (Cth), made pursuant to s 477(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth).

2. See, eg, Amy Gunia, ‘After Australia Banned its Citizens in India from Coming Home, Many Ask: Who is Really Australian?’ Time Magazine (online), 19 May 2021 <https://time.com/6047130/australia-india-covid-travel-ban/>; Michelle Grattan, ‘Human Rights Commission Expresses ‘Deep Concerns’ at Ban on Returnees from India’, The Conversation (online), 3 May 2021 <https://theconversation.com/human-rights-commission-expresses-deep-concerns-at-ban-on-returnees-from-india-160166>; Paul Karp, ‘Australia’s India Travel Ban: Does the Health Justification Stack up and is the Move Legal?’ The Guardian (online), 3 May 2019 <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/03/australias-india-travel-ban-does-the-health-justification-stack-up-and-is-the-move-legal>.

3. Newman v Minister for Health and Aged Care [2021] FCA 517 (‘Newman’).

4. Ibid [4]. For a detailed analysis of the decision see, Sangeetha Pillai, ‘Is Australia’s India Travel Ban Legal? A Citizenship Law Expert Explains’, The Conversation (online), 4 May 2021 <https://theconversation.com/is-australias-india-travel-ban-legal-a-citizenship-law-expert-explains-160178>.

5. Newman (n 3) [69]–[76]; Re Canavan (2017) 263 CLR 284, 328; Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship v SZRHU (2013) 215 FCR 35, [101]–[117].

6. Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277, 289 (Griffiths CJ). See also 293–4 (Barton J), 304–5 (O’Connor J) (‘Potter’).

7. Ibid; Newman (n 3) [76].

8. Ibid [95]–[96].

9. Ibid 469 (emphasis added).

10. Air Caledonie (n 9) 469 (emphasis added).

11. Singh v Commonwealth (2004) 222 CLR 322, 387–8 [166] (‘Singh’).

12. Love v Commonwealth (2020) 270 CLR 152, 254 [273] (‘Love’). See also Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Ame (2005) 222 CLR 439, 454 [22] (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ), 466 [61] (Kirby J) (‘Ame’).

13. Love (n 12) 309 [440], quoting United States v Valentine 288F Supp 957, 980 (1968).

14. Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federation Conference, Melbourne, 2 March 1898, 1750–1 (John Quick) (‘Debates of the Australasian Federation Conference 2 March 1898’).

15. Sir John Quick and Sir Robert Garran, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (Angus & Robertson, 1901).

16. Debates of the Australasian Federation Conference 2 March 1898 (n 14) 1750–1 (John Quick).

17. Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federation Conference, Melbourne, 3 March 1898, 1797 (Isaac Isaacs) (‘Debates of the Australasian Federation Conference 3 March 1898’).

18. Debates of the Australasian Federation Conference 2 March 1898 (n 14) 1763–4 (Josiah Symon).

19. Ibid 1760 (Charles Kingston). See also Sangeetha Pillai, ‘Non-Immigrants, Non-Aliens and People of the Commonwealth: Australian Constitutional Citizens Revisited’ (2013) 39(2) Monash University Law Review 568, 577.

20. Debates of the Australasian Federation Conference 3 March 1898 (n 17) 1797 (Sir John Cockburn); Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federation Conference, Melbourne, 28 January 1989, 246 (John Quick). See also Singh (n 11) 369 [101] (‘Singh’); Kim Rubenstein, Australian Citizenship Law (Thomson Reuters, 2nd ed, 2016) 47, 50–1.

21. Debates of the Australasian Federation Conference 2 March 1898 (n 14) 1765–6 (Edmund Barton).

22. Helen Irving, ‘Still Call Australia Home: The Constitution and the Citizen’s Right of Abode’ (2008) 30(1) Sydney Law Review 133, 134.

23. Debates of the Australasian Federation Conference 2 March 1898 (n 14) 1761 (Richard O’Connor).

24. Debates of the Australasian Federation Conference 3 March 1898 (n 17) 1797 (Isaac Isaacs); Rubenstein, Australian Citizenship Law (n 20) 62.

25. Constitution preamble, covering cl 3, covering cl 5, ss 7, 15, 24, 25.

26. Ibid ss 34(ii), 44 (i), 117.

27. Debates of the Australasian Federation Conference 2 March 1898 (n 14) 1761 (Richard O’Connor), 1765 (Edmund Barton).

28. Ibid 1764 (Josiah Symon).

29. Rubenstein, Australian Citizenship Law (n 20) 47.

30. Debates of the Australasian Federation Conference 2 March 1898 (n 14) 1763–4 (Josiah Symon).

31. Renamed the Australian Citizenship Act 1948–1973 (Cth) in 1973.

32. See, eg, Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Act 2015 (Cth).

33. See, eg, Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019 (Cth); Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth); Migration Act 1985 (Cth).

34. Hwang v Commonwealth (2005) 80 ALJR 125 (‘Hwang’).

35. Ibid 128 [9].

36. Ibid.

37. Sangeetha Pillai, ‘The Rights and Responsibilities of Australian Citizenship: A Legislative Analysis’ (2014) 37(2) Melbourne University Law Review 736, 743.

38. Hwang (n 34) 128 [9]. See also Ex Parte Walsh and Johnson; Re Yates (1925) 37 CLR 36, 110 (Isaacs J); Robtelmes v Brenan (1906) 4 CLR 395, 400 (Griffith CJ), quoting Attorney General (Can) v Cain [1906] AC 542, 546 (Atkinson LJ); Singh (n 11) 378 [134] (McHugh J).

39. Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 218 CLR 28, 85 [181] (Callinan J) (‘Shaw’). See also Singh (n 11) 433–4 [318]–[319] (Callinan J).

40. (1988) 166 CLR 79. See also Williams v Commonwealth [No 2] (2014) 252 CLR 416.

41. Ibid 102–3 (Wilson and Dawson JJ), 117 (Toohey J) (emphasis added).

42. Singh (n 11) 329 [4] (Gleeson CJ). See also Nolan v Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1988) 165 CLR 178, 190 (Gaudron J) (‘Nolan’); Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Te (2002) 212 CLR 162, 173 [31] (Gleeson CJ); Koroitamana v Commonwealth (2006) 227 CLR 31, 46 [48] (Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ) (‘Koroitamana’); Chetcuti v Commonwealth of Australia [2021] 95 ALJR 704, 714 [29] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gleeson JJ).

43. Pillai, ‘Non-Immigrants, Non-Aliens and People of the Commonwealth: Australian Constitutional Citizens Revisited’ (n 19) 578.

44. Parliament relied on its immigration power to exclude non-white British subjects from entering Australia under the White Australia Policy. In Potter v Minahan, however, the majority of the High Court held that an Australian-born, half-Chinese British subject who had lived most of his life in China was not an ‘immigrant’ because, by returning to Australia, he was coming ‘home’. Despite disagreeing about whether the plaintiff was, in fact, returning home, all judges agreed that a person with a substantive connection to the Australian community would fall outside the scope of the immigration power. This means that a person who has been ‘absorbed into the community’ passes beyond the reach of the immigration power: Potter (n 6) 289–90 (Griffiths CJ), 294 (Barton J), 302–2, 306 (O’Connor J), 308 (Isaacs J), 321–2 (Higgins J); see generally Pillai, ‘Non-Immigrants, Non-Aliens and People of the Commonwealth: Australian Constitutional Citizens Revisited’ (n 19) 581–3. Parliament has relied on the aliens power, on the other hand, to deport people already within Australia. The precise test of alienage remains controversial and is discussed in detail below.

45. Greg Taylor, ‘Citizenship Rights and the Australian Constitution’ (2001) 12 Public Law Review 205, 218.

46. Ibid 217.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid 217. See also R v Macfarlane (1923) 32 CLR 518, 580 (Starke J).

49. Taylor (n 45) 218.

50. Constitution s 51(vi).

51. Ibid s 51(xxix).

52. Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019 (Cth); Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Parliament of Australia, Transcript of Hearing, (Hansard Transcript, 15 March 2019) 14 (Steve Webber).

53. Taylor (n 45) 217.

54. Love (n 12) 228 [131] (Gageler J), citing R v Public Vehicles Licensing Appeal Tribunal (Tas); ex parte Australian National Airways Pty Ltd (1964) 113 CLR 207, 225.

55. Irving, ‘Still Call Australia Home: The Constitution and the Citizen’s Right of Abode’ (n 22). Irving’s article has been widely cited. See, eg, Rubenstein, Australian Citizenship Law (n 20) 270; Elisa Arcioni, ‘Democracy and the Constitution: The People Deciding the Identity of “the People”’ in Glenn Patmore and Kim Rubenstein (eds), Law and Democracy: Contemporary Questions (ANU Press, 2014) 21; Sangeetha Pillai, ‘Non-Immigrants, Non-Aliens and People of the Commonwealth: Australian Constitutional Citizens Revisited’ (n 19) 575; Sangeetha Pillai, ‘The Rights and Responsibilities of Australian Citizenship: A Legislative Analysis’ (n 37) 761; Sangeetha Pillai and George Williams, ‘The Utility of Citizenship Stripping Laws in the UK, Canada and Australia’ (2017) 41(2) Melbourne University Law Review 845, 879; Michelle Foster, ‘An “Alien” by the Barest of Threads – The Legality of Deportation of Long-Term Residents from Australia’ (2009) 33(2) Melbourne University Law Review 483, 507; Kim Rubenstein and Jacqueline Field, ‘Conceptualising Australian Citizenship for Children: A Human Rights Perspective’ (2013) 20 Australian International Law Journal 77, 78.

56. Irving, ‘Still Call Australia Home: The Constitution and the Citizen’s Right of Abode’ (n 22) 150.

57. Shaw (n 39) 35 [2].

58. Ibid.

59. Irving, ‘Still Call Australia Home: The Constitution and the Citizen’s Right of Abode’ (n 22) 150. See also Helen Irving, Citizenship, Alienage and the Modern Constitutional State: A Gendered History (Cambridge University Press, 2016) 258–9.

60. Love (n 12) 215 [64] (Bell J), 273 [394] (Nettle J), 259 [305] (Gordon J), 282 [427], 273 [394] (Edelman J).

61. Under this test, aboriginality depends on biological descendant, self-identification as Aboriginal and recognition as a member of an Aboriginal community by elders or other people with traditional authority: (1992) 175 CLR 1, 70 (Brennan J).

62. Love (n 12) 218 [81] (Bell J), 256 [284] (Nettle J), 271 [374] (Gordon J), 288 [450] (Edelman J).

63. See generally Eddie Synot, ‘The Rightful Place of First Nations: Love and Thoms’, Australian Public Law (Blog Post, 6 March 2020) <https://auspublaw.org/2020/03/the-rightful-place-of-first-nations-love-thoms/>.

64. Love (n 12) 217 [74].

65. Ibid 255 [279].

66. Ibid 258 [296].

67. Ibid 274 [398].

68. Pochi v MacPhee (1982) 151 CLR 101, 109 [9] (Gibbs CJ) (‘Pochi’), cited in Love (n 12) 206 [7] (Kiefel CJ), 215 [64] (Bell J), 219 [87] (Gageler J), 233 [168] (Keane J), 243 [236] (Nettle J), 263 [327] (Gordon J), 273 [395] (Edelman J).

69. Singh (n 11) 329 [5] (Gleeson CJ). See also Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, 258.

70. Love (n 12) 248 [252] (Nettle J). See also 215 [64] (Bell J), 264 [330] (Gordon J), 273 [392] (Edelman J).

71. Ibid 258 [295] (Gordon J), 273 [394] (Edelman J).

72. Ibid 251 [64] (Bell J), 273 [395] (Edelman J).

73. Ibid 273 [395] (Edelman J)

74. Ibid 228 [131].

75. Ibid 222 [101].

76. Ibid 206 [7], 211–12 (Kiefel CJ), 233 [168], 235 (Keane J).

77. [2021] HCA 25 (‘Chetcuti’).

78. Ibid [38] (Gordon J). See also [69] (Edelman J), [105] (Steward J).

79. Ibid 206 [7] (Kiefel CJ), 233 [168] (Keane J).

80. Quick and Garran (n 15) 285, quoted in Hwang (n 34) 129 [14]. See also Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455, 486 (Deane and Toohey JJ) (‘Leeth’); Breavington v Goldeman (1988) 169 CLR 41, 123 (Deane J); DJL v Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226, 278 [135] (Kirby J); Love (n 12) 207 [14] (Keifel CJ).

81. Arcioni, ‘Democracy and the Constitution: The People Deciding the Identity of “the People”’ (n 55) 13.

82. Hwang (n 34) 129 [11].

83. Attorney General (Cth); ex rel McKinlay v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 1, 36 (McTiernan and Jacobs JJ) (‘McKinlay’).

84. Leeth (n 80) 484 [7].

85. Ibid.

86. Rowe v Electoral Commissioner (2010) 243 CLR 1, 12 [1] (French CJ) (‘Rowe’), citing Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) 233 CLR 162, 198 [82] (Gummow, Kirby and Crennan JJ) (‘Roach’).

87. See especially Constitution ss 1, 7, 8 13, 24, 25, 28, 30. See also Arcioni, ‘Democracy and the Constitution: The People Deciding the Identity of “the People”’ (n 55) 13.

88. Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106, 138 [37] (Mason CJ), quoted in Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1, 115 (Gaudron J) (‘Kruger’).

89. Roach (n 86) 198–9 [83] (Gummow, Kirby Crennan JJ).

90. (1997) 189 CLR 520, 557 (‘Lange’).

91. Roach (n 86) 198 [81]–[82].

92. Rowe (n 86) 107.

93. Lange (n 90) 560; Roach (n 86) 199–200 (Gummow, Kirby Crennan JJ).

94. Irving, ‘Still Call Australia Home: The Constitution and the Citizen’s Right of Abode’ (n 22) 151; Rowe (n 86) (French) [21].

95. Constitution s 128.

96. McKinlay (n 83) 36 [4]. See also Langer v Commonwealth (1996) 186 CLR 320, 342–3 (McHugh J) (‘Langer’), Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commissioner (2004) 220 CLR 181, 256 [220] (Kirby J); Rowe (n 86) 20 [25].

97. Langer (n 96) 342–3 (McHugh J).

98. Elisa Arcioni, ‘The Core of the Australian Constitutional People – “The People” as “The Electors”’ (2016) 39(1) University of New South Wales Law Review 421, 433, 435.

99. Roach (n 86) 199 [84] (Gummow, Kirby, Crennan JJ).

100. Hwang (n 34) 129 [12]–[14].

101. Ibid 130 [18].

102. Roach (n 86) 175 [8].

103. See, eg, Love (n 12) 233 [168] (Keane J), 243 [236] (Nettle J); Singh (n 11) 347 [49] (McHugh J); Hwang (n 34) 130 [18] (McHugh J); Koroitamana (n 42) 38 [11] (Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ).

104. Singh (n 11) 340–1 [30] (Gleeson CJ).

105. Ibid; Love (n 12) [443] (Edelman J).

106. See discussion at pages 4–5 above.

107. Love (n 12) 247 [251].

108. Ibid (n 12) 273 [393], 283 [432] (Edelman J).

109. Irving, ‘Still Call Australia Home: The Constitution and the Citizen’s Right of Abode’ (n 22) 134.

110. With the introduction of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth), renamed the Australian Citizenship Act 1973 (Cth) and replaced by the Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

111. Chetcuti (n 77) [88] (Edelman J); Genevieve Ebbeck, ‘A Constitutional Concept of Australian Citizenship’ (2004) 25(2) Adelaide Law Review 137, 140–1.

112. Love (n 12) 273 [394] (Edelman J).

113. Hwang (n 34) 130 [18].

114. Singh (n 11) 380 [139], 379 [138] (McHugh J); Koroitamana (n 42) 47 [56] (Kirby J); Ame (n 12) 475 [92] (Kirby J).

115. Love (n 12) 273 [394], 279 [415], 281 [422], 283 [432], 284 [435].

116. Ibid 283 [434] (Edelman J). Bell J also referred to ‘constitutional aliens’: 215 [66], 213 [56].

117. See Koroitamana (n 42) 46 [48] (Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ); Love (n 12) 228 [132] (Keane J).

118. See generally, Kim Rubenstein, ‘Citizenship in Australia: Unscrambling its Meaning’ (1995) 20(2) Melbourne Law Review 503; Kim Rubenstein and Niamh Lenagh-Maguire, ‘Thick and Thin Citizenship as Measures of Australian Democracy’ in Glenn Patmore and Kim Rubenstein (eds), Law and Democracy: Contemporary Questions (ANU Press, 2014) 27.

119. Singh (n 11) 382 [149].

120. Ibid.

121. Pillai ‘Non-Immigrants, Non-Aliens and People of the Commonwealth: Australian Constitutional Citizens Revisited’ (n 19) 606.

122. See, eg, Love (n 12) 233 [168] (Keane J), 243 [236] (Nettle J); Singh (n 11) 347 [49] (McHugh J); Hwang (n 34) 130 [18] (McHugh J); Koroitamana (n 42) 38 [11] (Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ).

123. Love (n 12) 197 [94].

124. Ibid 308 [473]. His Honour repeated this view in Chetcuti (n 77) 720 [59].

125. Ibid 187 [61].

126. Ibid 263 [302].

127. Ibid.

128. Ibid 277–8 [352].

129. Ibid 278 [355].

130. Ibid 279 [358].

131. Ibid 242 [2498].

132. Ibid 240–3 [246]–[249], citing Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, ‘Allegiance, Diplomatic Protection and Criminal Jurisdiction over Aliens’ (1947) 9(3) Cambridge Law Journal 330, 334.

133. Ibid 243 [248]; Singh (n 11) 352–3 [64] (McHugh J), 399 [202] (Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ).

134. Singh (n 11) 383 [154].

135. Ibid 400 [205].

136. Koroitamana (n 42) 44 [39] (Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ). See also Love (n 12) 305 [431] (Edelman J).

137. Ibid.

138. Pillai, ‘Non-Immigrants, Non-Aliens and People of the Commonwealth: Australian Constitutional Citizens Revisited’ (n 19) 592.

139. Love (n 12) 244 [251]–[252].

140. Ibid 244 [252].

141. Ibid 257 [278].

142. Arcioni, ‘Democracy and the Constitution: The People Deciding the Identity of “the People”’ (n 55) 25; Kim Rubenstein and Niamh Lenagh-Maguire, ‘Thick and Thin Citizenship as Measures of Australian Democracy’ in Glenn Patmore and Kim Rubenstein (eds), Law and Democracy: Contemporary Questions (ANU Press, 2014) 33; Pillai, ‘Non-Immigrants, Non-Aliens and People of the Commonwealth: Australian Constitutional Citizens Revisited’ (n 19) 590.

143. Love (n 12) 308–9 [439].

144. Ibid 309 [440].

145. Singh (n 11).

146. Koroitamana (n 42).

147. Ame (n 12).

148. Pochi (n 68).

149. Nolan (n 42) 183 (Mason CJ, Wilson, Brennan, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ).

150. Ibid 184.

151. Ibid.

152. Ibid; Shaw (n 39) 37 [11] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

153. See generally, Justice James Edelman, ‘2018 Winterton Lecture: Constitutional Interpretation’ (2019) 45(1) University of Western Australia Law Review 1, 16–28.

154. Roach (n 86) 174 [7] (Gleeson CJ).

155. (1992) 176 CLR 1, 29 (Brennan, Deane amd Dawson JJ) (‘Chu Kheng Lim’).

156. Ibid 57.

157. Love (n 12) 287 [391]. See also 254 [273] (Nettle J).

158. Ibid 308 [438].

159. See generally Kruger (n 88) 61 (Dawson J).

160. See, eg, Biosecurity (Human Biosecurity Emergency) (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) (Emergency Requirements) Determination 2020 (Cth), Biosecurity (Human Biosecurity Emergency) (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) (Emergency Requirements — Incoming International Flights) Determination 2021 (Cth). See generally, Howard MacLean and Karen Elphik, ‘COVID-19 Legislative Response: Human Biosecurity Emergency Declaration Explainer’, Parliament of Australia (Web Page, 19 March 2020) <https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2020/March/COVID-19_Biosecurity_Emergency_Declaration>; ‘How does the Federal Government’s Emergency Restrictions on COVID19 (Coronavirus) Work?’ Justice Connect (Web Page, 15 October 2020) <https://justiceconnect.org.au/resources/how-the-federal-governments-emergency-restrictions-on-coronavirus-covid-19-work/>.

161. See generally, Kruger (n 88) and in particular 91 (Toohey J).

162. Ibid. In determining whether legislation is reasonably appropriate and adapted, the High Court has approved of a ‘structured proportionality’ analysis, which requires consideration of: (a) the suitability of the legislation to its purpose; (b) the necessity of the legislation and (c) a judgment about the adequacy of the balance between the legislation’s purpose and the extent of the restriction on freedom: McCloy v New South Wales (2015) 257 CLR 194–5 (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ); Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery (2019) 267 CLR 171; LibertyWorks Inc v Commonwealth (2021) 95 ALJR 490.

163. For a detailed discussion on the proportionality of Australia’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, see Liz Hicks and Sangeetha Pillai, ‘Proportionality, Rights and Australia’s COVID-19 Response: Insights from the India Travel Ban’, Australian Public Law (Blog Post, 16 August 2021) <https://auspublaw.org/2021/08/proportionality-rights-and-australias-covid-19-response-insights-from-the-india-travel-ban/>.

164. See, eg, Helmbright v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1872; McHugh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2020) 283 FCR 602.

165. See, eg, Matson v Attorney General [2020] FCA 1558, 74 [216].

166. Love (n 12) 170 [4] (Kiefel CJ).

167. Ibid 212 [140].

168. Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019 (Cth) ss 3, 10.

169. Ibid ss 15–16.

170. See generally, Helen Irving, ‘Can We Come Home Now? Temporary Exclusion Orders Act Raises Serious Constitutional Concerns’ (2019) 59 Law Society of NSW Journal 68; Sangeetha Pillai, ‘There’s No Clear Need for Peter Dutton’s New Bill Excluding Citizens from Australia’, The Conversation (Web Page, 5 July 2019) <https://theconversation.com/theres-no-clear-need-for-peter-duttons-new-bill-excluding-citizens-from-australia-119876>; Helen Irving, Submission No 1 to Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Parliament of Australia, Review of Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019 (6 March 2018); Ananian-Welsh, Blackbourn and McGarrity (n 51); Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Parliament of Australia, Advisory Report on the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019 (Report, April 2019).

171. The observations of Gleeson CJ in Roach (n 88) 174–5 about the circumstances in which franchise can be limited might be relevant in this respect. His Honour observed: ‘It is easy to multiply examples of possible forms of disenfranchisement that would be identified readily as inconsistent with choice by the people, but other possible examples might be more doubtful. An arbitrary exception would be inconsistent with choice by the people. There would need to be some rationale for the exception; the definition of the excluded class or group would need to have a rational connection with the identification of community membership or with the capacity to exercise free choice… The rational connection between such exclusion and the identification of community membership for the purpose of the franchise might be found in conduct which manifests such a rejection of civic responsibility as to warrant temporary withdrawal of a civic right.' The circumstances in which Gleeson CJ suggested that the right to vote could be denied are potentially analogous to the circumstances in which a person’s freedom to enter Australia could be restricted. It could be argued that anti-terrorism legislation like the TEO Act is not arbitrary and can be justified on the basis of civic irresponsibility.